Incident 13 May 15

[Geoff13]

The interesting discussions on this thread about fire extinguishers and PPE, whilst they are important discussions in their own right I personally think that they should come second or even third to a couple of other very important issues.

 

As has been said a couple of times on this thread, an in flight fire is about the worst case scenario we as pilots can face. Certainly at my level as a RPC pilot where it is unlikely that I will face a terrorist threat I cannot think of anything worse. That is highlighted by the fact that during the incident itself I thought ohh why couldn't I have something simple like an engine out. Don't get me wrong I am not suggesting that an engine failure is something that any of us would want, but we train for them, so why do we not train for an in flight fire? I was lucky, someone elses earlier incident made me question what my reaction would be given a similar circumstance, and I believe that certainly helped with my decision making process at the time. The fact that I had questioned people about what to do and how helped me because I was very aware of my aircraft limitations etc.

 

The response to an in flight fire needs to be very different to the response to an engine failure and as such I think a discussion needs to be started to consider whether it could/should/shouldn't be included in the training syllabus. Now I understand the reluctance of many on here to consider anything that might make them do more than is already required but personally I would not care if it took me an extra 5 hours to get my RPC if it meant that I had demonstrated how to get the aircraft on the ground in a hurry considering the flow of smoke/fire/wind etc. I personally think this is more important than whether we should/could/shouldn't wear PPE or carry a fire extinguisher.

 

The extinguisher to me is a given, it should be in all aircraft and within reach of the pilot. Even if it only gives you a couple more minutes, at our maximum height that could make all the difference and to be honest the weight penalty is fairly minor. The PPE is another thing altogether. Full fireproof PPE would simply mean that I couldn't fly. As has been mentioned some motorcyclist subscribe to ATTGAT. (All the gear all the time). If I did that because of my reaction to heat I would not ride/fly for 9 months of the year. In fact I rarely wear boots on a motorcycle because of my knees. These are decisions that I make all the time but I can only make them if I am well informed. That comes back to training and information distribution. Full fireproof PPE would be almost unachievable in an RAAus aircraft most of the time due to heat/room and believe it or not the weight penalty would be worse than a 1kg fire extinguisher.

 

I think awareness and training as well as the obvious make it as unlikely as possible that you will need it by correct installation and maintenance.

 

 

[facthunter]

Airlines do train for an uncontrolled in flight fire. The principles are the same. Get the plane on the ground as quickly as can be safely achieved and deal with it. There are design criteria in smaller aircraft that should be addressed realistically that wouldn't cost a lot. Nev

 

 

[Maritime_Ev]

The response to an in flight fire needs to be very different to the response to an engine failure and as such I think a discussion needs to be started to consider whether it could/should/shouldn't be included in the training syllabus. Now I understand the reluctance of many on here to consider anything that might make them do more than is already required but personally I would not care if it took me an extra 5 hours to get my RPC if it meant that I had demonstrated how to get the aircraft on the ground in a hurry considering the flow of smoke/fire/wind etc. I personally think this is more important than whether we should/could/shouldn't wear PPE or carry a fire extinguisher.

For my PPL we did regularly practise the cabin fire, engine fire (on ground and in the air) and wing fire drills as per the emergency checklists in both the 172 and the 162, usually when the instructor cought me relaxing just a little bit in the cruise.

 

Don't know how much that would help in an actual emergency, but it is certainly better than nothing. I've had only a single significant fire in my 15 years at sea, and our montly fire drills did help, even just to make people panic slightly less than they would have otherwise.

 

I think the PPL sylabus says something along the lines of the student pilot 'being able to execute the emergency procedures as per POH' or something like that, the RA-AUS syllabus is also pretty brief on the subject.

 

Agree it would be a good idea to include a bit more in the flight training, but perhaps as part of the 'advanced pilot award' or some other form of voluntairy advanced emergency training? So you wouldn't increase the base price of a RPC, but at the same time do have a certain standard for pilots who want to do a bit more.

 

 

 

[jetjr]

There a procedure in Jabiru POH

 

 

[SDQDI]

When I did my RPC we certainly covered inflight fires, not that we spent hours and hours on it but certainly covered it.

 

I'm still a bit bemused by the VNE comments in regards to 'putting out' a fire by diving past VNE. Doing that IMHO opens up the very real danger of MY most feared inflight problem, structural failure. Ok so MAYBE our planes can go a smidge over VNE without instantly exploding but can we be sure of that? Maybe a few more views of some videos of flutter resulting in structural failure would be appropriate? Some planes may be tested to withstand some flutter but I doubt most of our rec stuff is up to that same standard.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Make it volunthairy? If you included it anywhere in the syllabus and it's definitely a safety thing, you would HAVE to do it under a duty of care concept. Training is not everything but almost everything. Not having done it is rarely an advantage. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

The manufacturer has stated that they advise against the installation of an electric auxiliary fuel pump. They have determined though that were only three aircraft with this similar installation and have advised the other owners.

 

geoff13 three questions

 

1 is a rotax motor installed in plane

 

2 if so is it installed to rotax spects

 

3 is there a return line to fuel tank neil

 

 

[Oscar]

When I did my RPC we certainly covered inflight fires, not that we spent hours and hours on it but certainly covered it.I'm still a bit bemused by the VNE comments in regards to 'putting out' a fire by diving past VNE. Doing that IMHO opens up the very real danger of MY most feared inflight problem, structural failure. Ok so MAYBE our planes can go a smidge over VNE without instantly exploding but can we be sure of that? Maybe a few more views of some videos of flutter resulting in structural failure would be appropriate? Some planes may be tested to withstand some flutter but I doubt most of our rec stuff is up to that same standard.

The idea that you can snuff out a fire on the cowl area by diving hard - perhaps to past VNE - is, I believe, quite probably in the arena of urban myth and also likely to cause more danger than a better-considered response.

 

Firstly, UNLESS that idea has been tested by the manufacturer and found to be effective, there is absolutely NO guarantee that in a high-speed dive, the airflow inside the cowl will actually increase to the point where it has the desired effect. Airflow in a convoluted and cluttered space is anything BUT intuitively understandable; you have quite small opening on the high-pressure areas of the cowl (the various air intakes), and also exhaust areas which, in a properly-designed cowl, will operate to generate maximum scavenging ( or in other words, to generate low pressure) in 'normal' flight conditions.

 

Anybody who has studied engine intake and exhaust design will be familiar with the problems of 'choking' due to changes in area, turbulence, even sonic pulse generation. While sonic pulse is highly unlikely even in a VNE dive, most certainly other forms of 'choking' may well occur. FFS, look at the size of the average air intake on an efficient cowl - they are small. By the time the air designed to pass over the heads and through the oil cooler has managed to get through those obstructions - carefully designed to extract the maximum cooling from the passing airflow - it may well be simply traveling at a speed and pressure that will do nothing but ADD to the oxygen available to a fuel fire in the cowl.

 

Secondly - the possibility of flutter is just ONE of the potential problems of exceeding VNE. Properly-designed aircraft have increasing control load with speed - to prevent excessive control application as speed increases. If you are going to try to use VNE as your escape solution - you'd better be REALLY on the ball WRT your airspeed, lest you enter control-lock-up.

 

Then there are fundamental aerodynamics considerations. Depending on - for instance - the airfoil, recovery from an 'overspeed' may be extremely dangerous. The Gazelle, for example, is KNOWN to have aerodynamic load reversal at a very small margin above VNE - and if that happens, the front lift-strut collapses and the wing(s) departs.

 

Personally, if I am ever in the situation of having to get an aircraft on the ground in the minimum possible time, I'd select the slideslip option - at least you can feel the aerodynamic effects. Diving at above VNE is, as far as I am concerned, a decision that 'I am dead anyway, let's get it over with'.

 

 

[facthunter]

Blowing it out probably is a hangover from tough radial engined aircraft, with a fairly open cowl.. The effectiveness is dependent on cutting the flammables from the area. Fuel and oil, hydraulics etc and a proper firewall that will resist fire for a while.. Overspeeding the airframe is a worry and the Gazelle as Oscar says, will lose a wing if loaded at speed as one example. Descend with full flap is one way and sideslipping is often recommended to direct the heat and flames. one side or the other. Closing the cowl gills fully, (when fitted) might even be a good idea to keep oil and flames from going where they aren't wanted. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

The manufacturer has stated that they advise against the installation of an electric auxiliary fuel pump. They have determined though that were only three aircraft with this similar installation and have advised the other owners. geoff13 three questions

 

1 is a rotax motor installed in plane

 

2 if so is it installed to rotax spects

 

3 is there a return line to fuel tank neil

 

geoff13 why I have asked about your plane as far as i know does not comply with installation manual and should not be flying

 

I stand to be corrected

 

rotax have a diagram off the correct installation off fuel lines and pumps eltric witch if not followed cancel out their warranty prove me wrong neil

 

 

[Geoff13]

The manufacturer has stated that they advise against the installation of an electric auxiliary fuel pump. They have determined though that were only three aircraft with this similar installation and have advised the other owners. geoff13 three questions

1 is a rotax motor installed in plane

 

2 if so is it installed to rotax spects

 

3 is there a return line to fuel tank neil

 

geoff13 why I have asked about your plane as far as i know does not comply with installation manual and should not be flying

 

I stand to be corrected

 

rotax have a diagram off the correct installation off fuel lines and pumps eltric witch if not followed cancel out their warranty prove me wrong neil

Neil I hadn't responded yet because I can't answer all of your questions off the top of my head but as you seem to be in a hurry here goes.

 

1. Yes the plane has a Rotax.

 

2. I assume it is as it was fitted by the Foxbat factory. (Not being a Rotax engineer and only having flown the plane not maintained it, I cannot say that for certain).

 

3. I have no idea but I will have a look for you next time that I hire the plane and have the cowl of it.

 

Neil it is not actually my plane, it is however the plane that I learned in and hire from time to time. I did own a share in it for a while. It has over 900 hours now so I suspect that Rotax probably are not going to cover much of it by warranty any more. The fuel pump was actually fitted by the factory even though they do not recommend it, and they are certainly conducting an investigation. With the factory approved removal of the offending item, I am certainly happy to keep flying it.

 

You do bring up an interesting point though. The aircraft is an LSA so nothing can be changed without factory approval. In that case who has the final say in whether the installation is correct, the plane manufacturer who must approve changes or the component maker. And that question should be valid for all components used in any LSA. I would hope that an approved LSA should be designed with the component makers requirements being considered.

 

 

[Oscar]

Geoff:

 

an LSA is certified by the manufacturer as meeting the applicable ASTM standards - there is no 'approval' other than that. A component manufacturer does not have to provide ASTM certified status for its part - but it CAN revoke warranty if the installation does not meet its specified standard ( Rotax applies this, as does Lycoming).

 

So: if that aircraft was, with the pump attached, certified as an LSA by the company - the company is wholly responsible. If the pump was an unapproved installation - the aircraft was NOT eligible to fly.

 

Somewhere along the line, SOMEBODY has serious questions to answer.

 

 

[storchy neil]

sorry Geoff but as Oscar pointed out rotax installation manual is not being followed both RAA and casa have been neg in not following my complaint about what I am saying

 

lets see how they handle it as your plane is not the only one that fits this cat

 

if installed to rotax manual you might get a big surprise but in your case i feel you have a pig in the bag

 

geof my email [email protected] mobile 0419202665 neil

 

 

[Geoff13]

So recent incidents have made me revisit this thread.

 

Without doubt for me the two most disappointing things to come out of this incident are as follows.

 

Julie has only been up with me a couple of times since the incident and to be honest I am certain that it was only to show some trust in me she has however lost any passion that she may have had for flying which was I will admit minimal to begin with.

 

RAA's response was dismal as was Foxbats. I would simply never bother submitting another incident report.

 

As callous as it may sound, any interest in this incident died with Maj.

 

So disappointing. I have as a result become a critic of RAA and their reporting procedure.

 

 

[storchy neil]

Yep geof your incident and my incident sure did die with that man like I said RAA hiding pure ignorance and lack of duty off care

 

Failure off RAA to fully investigate is a failure under the charter from casa

 

RAA claiming that safety is of concern bull Neil

 

 

[ozbear]

So recent incidents have made me revisit this thread.Without doubt for me the two most disappointing things to come out of this incident are as follows.

Julie has only been up with me a couple of times since the incident and to be honest I am certain that it was only to show some trust in me she has however lost any passion that she may have had for flying which was I will admit minimal to begin with.

 

RAA's response was dismal as was Foxbats. I would simply never bother submitting another incident report.

 

As callous as it may sound, any interest in this incident died with Maj.

 

So disappointing. I have as a result become a critic of RAA and their reporting procedure.

Sorry to hear that Geoff it seems RAA is more concerned with paperwork than groundwork.